Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Jane Hahn (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Ava Angeles (Outschool Online - Intermediate)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Resolved: The United Nation should require countries to uniformly enact substantial criminal justice reform in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.

  • Jane Hahn
    Jane Hahn

    Ava Angeles
    Ava Angeles
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 20, 2020 08:21:45AM EST by Jane Hahn



    Posted at July 21, 2020 06:34:16PM EST by Ava Angeles



    States passing new laws:

    United Nations functions and powers:

    Forensic science is putting innocent people in jail:

    Posted at July 22, 2020 10:11:46AM EST by Jane Hahn



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 23, 2020 09:59:47PM EST by Ava Angeles



    Flaws in forensic science:

    Posted at July 24, 2020 09:51:01AM EST by Jane Hahn



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 24, 2020 10:20:56PM EST by David Kane

    Category Jane Hahn Ava Angeles
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 3 2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 3
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3
    Comments: Your opponent did use all of the time available, which left you with some extra time. You almost sounded bored repeating your argument about the UN being an appropriate institution. You can refer back and extend your arguments without repeating them verbatim. Try to find different ways of saying the same thing. It will be more interesting for you as a speaker and the audience as a listener. Use your time. You had plenty of time, especially in your first speech that you did not use. Make more and stronger arguments to that your opponent has to spend more time in response.

    Try to keep the big picture in mind and spend your time accordingly. You spent a lot of time in your rebuttal talking about the problems in forensics science, but very little time arguing about why it is an overstep of UN authority. You said in your constructive speech that reforms were needed, so why spend your time arguing against these specific reforms?

    You had a fine argument about developing countries having more important priorities, but you didn't bring that up until your rebuttal. You had plenty of time to have brought that up in your constructive speech.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jane Hahn

    Reason for Decision:

    Thank you for the debate.

    The decision goes to the proposition.

    On the thread about the UN being an appropriate actor, the opposition started an argument about it being outside of their mandate, but then dropped that argument after a question was raised about that evidence. The opposition did not follow through, and so the proposition wins that point.

    The opposition seemed conflicted between suggesting reform was needed, and then getting wrapped up in debating the needs of various reforms.

    The opposition raised a later argument about developing countries having other priorities, but the opposition was able to point to existing UN programs that already addressed those priorities.

    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by: